sorry if i caused offence to your faith which ever religion it might belong, but you asked for an anwser and i gave you a honest and thorough one. a bloody nutter… is that a compliment, or just another way to say you failed to get me yet again? i don’t blame you babe, my english is evidently crap and my ideas are obviously out of your taste
disappointing, liquidangel, but i still have the will to try on, i’d like to hear you say one day, not necessaily that “uniqor, i have faith in you”, but at least “uniqor, i get you”
dr k, while your discourse is not what i would consider very flawed, but it doesn’t really defy my previous saying that “wisdom is based on fulfillment”. sure intellegent people make mistakes and can be sad, so? so they are not really the wise ones…
so you say that the wise doesn’t need to be fulfilled other than being himself? possible, a pecular case though: like a buhdist monk, a sense of perfect tranquility not acquired from wisdom alone. a long processe of dehumanisation imposed on oneself would be the only way to attain that kind of special fulfilment.
“It is the practical weight of the process of leaving the cave that facilitates the emergence or ‘re-framing’ of beings in a new unhiddenness. Aletheia is a constant overcoming of hiddenness. Crudely then, there is an emphasis on praxis; see especially the word agathon; which is commonly translated as ‘the good’.”
Thanks for the rundown. Similar arguments and emphasis mark his lectures on The Sophist, which I would highly recommend as well, for anyone interested in the Greek. He strips it down bare. Yet I would say that at least to the degree that Plato employs the trope of aletheia, he is teaching his Theory of Forms. The praxis that leads to revelation doesn’t really seem to preclude this Theory, but only sets a diachronic path to it.
Well put. It is not though the beginning and end of this path, in and of itself. To this extent, there is at least some tension it seems in Plato’s thought.
Thanks for the recommendation; I have not read the Sophist. However I think I will hold off a little while until I have a better grasp of the languages (that is, the attic Greek as well as the Heideggerian).
I had a prof say once that the interpretation of the forms Aristotle would go on to attack is the common/vulgar one. I took this to mean the difference between reading what Plato is attempting to teach literally, as opposed to trying to decipher the meaning behind it.
James mentions
which accords with a certain context… that of Athens, the Death of Socrates, etc. In short, Plato is looking for a better way. Justice then, should never be defined by the the strong, it is to be defined by the wise.
To the original question, the main virtue would be wisdom, which serves to illuminate all others.
Courage:
The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.
On the IQ test the important part of providing the correct definition is to mention that you do all of these things inspite of your own fear.
Anyway, we will all need courage right up until the end of our lives if we are to die with any kind of peace, and that is one reason why I think courage is important.
If I know death is coming I want to face the facts with courage.
This is a corner where you guys start to sqeeze yourselves in and the contradictions begin… endeavor to look at the rest of the room and see me comfortably having my vodka-martini. I’m beyond you on this virtuous crap.
In the sense that wisdom is employed as some faculty to rule over (lessen/negate) the very same appetites that lead to the killing urge? I believe the two are exclusive.
If you mean to say you can think of fancy ways to kill, that isn’t wisdom, that is cunning.
Subhuti asked: “Is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? Is it unimaginable and totally unique but nevertheless reaching the unreachable and attaining the unattainable?â€
The Buddha replied: “Yes, Subhuti, it is exactly so. And why is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? It is because all its points of reference cannot be thought about but can be apprehended. One is the disappearance of the self-conscious person into pure presence. Another is the simple awakening to reality. Another is the knowing of the essenceless essence of all things of the world. And another is luminous knowledge that knows without a knower. None of these points can sustain ordinary thought because they are not objects or subjects. They can’t be imagined or touched or approached in any way by any ordinary mode of consciousness, therefore they are beyond thinking.
No, i am trying to say that being wise does not = Good of virtue, as somebody said in one of the above posts. So i am saying, if i am wise, can it not still be a killer? Or, if i am wise, can i still not be of good virtue? It seems incorrect to assume that if one is wise then one is also of good virtue.
Either you are talking in riddles or i have just failed to understand you. Imagine one is wise enough to realise that being virtuous is futile, just as all else is. Would you then argue that he is not wise enough to be of good virtue?
